IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i16p8700-d608286.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating Mine Design Alternatives for Social Risks Using Discrete Choice Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Kwame Awuah-Offei

    (Thomas J. O’Keefe Institute for Sustainable Supply of Strategic Minerals, Missouri University of Science & Technology, Rolla, MO 65409, USA)

  • Sisi Que

    (Key Laboratory of Hydraulic and Waterway Engineering of the Ministry of Education, College of River and Ocean Engineering, Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing 400074, China)

  • Atta Ur Rehman

    (Thomas J. O’Keefe Institute for Sustainable Supply of Strategic Minerals, Missouri University of Science & Technology, Rolla, MO 65409, USA)

Abstract

As with other engineering design tasks, mine design involves setting design objectives and constraints (the feasible solution space) and finding the optimal design alternative. Mine engineers often struggle to incorporate the preferences of local community members into their evaluation of mine design alternatives because the mining literature lacks tools to quantify such risks during mine planning. This paper presents an approach to evaluate community acceptance (i.e., community preferences for the alternatives) using discrete choice models and decision-based design during mine planning. Using discrete choice models and a rigorous framework, engineers can estimate the cost of social risks as a function of the probability that individuals in the host community will prefer a particular design alternative. They can then estimate the overall utility of a particular design alternative to the project proponents. This paper illustrates the proposed approach with a strategic mine planning exercise for a gold mine. The framework can be a useful tool for designing mines for sustainability, if combined with effective community engagement and management’s commitment to creating shared value.

Suggested Citation

  • Kwame Awuah-Offei & Sisi Que & Atta Ur Rehman, 2021. "Evaluating Mine Design Alternatives for Social Risks Using Discrete Choice Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:16:p:8700-:d:608286
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/8700/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/8700/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kemp, Deanna & Worden, Sandy & Owen, John R., 2016. "Differentiated social risk: Rebound dynamics and sustainability performance in mining," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 19-26.
    2. World Bank Group, 2017. "The Growing Role of Minerals and Metals for a Low Carbon Future," World Bank Publications - Reports 28312, The World Bank Group.
    3. Dorit S. Hochbaum, 2008. "The Pseudoflow Algorithm: A New Algorithm for the Maximum-Flow Problem," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 992-1009, August.
    4. Que, Sisi & Awuah-Offei, Kwame & Weidner, Nathan & Wang, Yumin, 2017. "Discrete choice experiment validation: A resource project case study," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 39-50.
    5. Leidy Klotz & Elke Weber & Eric Johnson & Tripp Shealy & Morela Hernandez & Bethany Gordon, 2018. "Beyond rationality in engineering design for sustainability," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(5), pages 225-233, May.
    6. Alexandra M. Newman & Enrique Rubio & Rodrigo Caro & Andrés Weintraub & Kelly Eurek, 2010. "A Review of Operations Research in Mine Planning," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 40(3), pages 222-245, June.
    7. Owen, John R. & Kemp, Deanna, 2014. "‘Free prior and informed consent’, social complexity and the mining industry: Establishing a knowledge base," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 91-100.
    8. Ivanova, Galina & Rolfe, John, 2011. "Assessing development options in mining communities using stated preference techniques," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 255-264, September.
    9. Jacob Taarup-Esbensen, 2020. "Communities as a risk in mining: managing community legitimacy," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(6), pages 811-826, June.
    10. Ernst-August Nuppenau, 2018. "Eco-System Services in Agrarian Value Chains: Value Detection of Bio-Diversity as Public Good Provision, Problems, and Institutional Issues," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, December.
    11. Sisi Que & Liang Wang & Kwame Awuah-Offei & Wei Yang & Hui Jiang, 2019. "Corporate Social Responsibility: Understanding the Mining Stakeholder with a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-12, April.
    12. Zhou, Min & Govindan, Kannan & Xie, Xiongbiao & Yan, Liang, 2021. "How to drive green innovation in China's mining enterprises? Under the perspective of environmental legitimacy and green absorptive capacity," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jingchen Zhao & Xiaoming Lu & Wangwei Lin, 2022. "Promoting Corporate Extraterritorial Sustainable Responsibility through the Lens of Social Licence to Operate," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-18, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Amina Lamghari & Roussos Dimitrakopoulos & Jacques Ferland, 2015. "A hybrid method based on linear programming and variable neighborhood descent for scheduling production in open-pit mines," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 555-582, November.
    2. Renaud Chicoisne & Daniel Espinoza & Marcos Goycoolea & Eduardo Moreno & Enrique Rubio, 2012. "A New Algorithm for the Open-Pit Mine Production Scheduling Problem," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 60(3), pages 517-528, June.
    3. Nancel-Penard, Pierre & Morales, Nelson & Cornillier, Fabien, 2022. "A recursive time aggregation-disaggregation heuristic for the multidimensional and multiperiod precedence-constrained knapsack problem: An application to the open-pit mine block sequencing problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(3), pages 1088-1099.
    4. Gonzalo Muñoz & Daniel Espinoza & Marcos Goycoolea & Eduardo Moreno & Maurice Queyranne & Orlando Rivera Letelier, 2018. "A study of the Bienstock–Zuckerberg algorithm: applications in mining and resource constrained project scheduling," Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 501-534, March.
    5. Somaye Narrei & Majid Ataee-pour, 2021. "Assessment of personal preferences concerning the social impacts of mining with choice experiment method," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 34(1), pages 39-49, April.
    6. Sisi Que & Liang Wang & Kwame Awuah-Offei & Wei Yang & Hui Jiang, 2019. "Corporate Social Responsibility: Understanding the Mining Stakeholder with a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-12, April.
    7. Frank Vanclay & Philippe Hanna, 2019. "Conceptualizing Company Response to Community Protest: Principles to Achieve a Social License to Operate," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-31, June.
    8. Alessandro Hill & Andrea J. Brickey & Italo Cipriano & Marcos Goycoolea & Alexandra Newman, 2022. "Optimization Strategies for Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling Problems in Underground Mining," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 3042-3058, November.
    9. Javed, Hasnain & Du, Jianguo & Iqbal, Shuja & Nassani, Abdelmohsen A. & Basheer, Muhammad Farhan, 2024. "The impact of mineral resource abundance on environmental degradation in ten mineral- rich countries: Do the green innovation and financial technology matter?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    10. Jinqiu He & Huiwen Su, 2022. "Digital Transformation and Green Innovation of Chinese Firms: The Moderating Role of Regulatory Pressure and International Opportunities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-21, October.
    11. Rafael Epstein & Marcel Goic & Andrés Weintraub & Jaime Catalán & Pablo Santibáñez & Rodolfo Urrutia & Raúl Cancino & Sergio Gaete & Augusto Aguayo & Felipe Caro, 2012. "Optimizing Long-Term Production Plans in Underground and Open-Pit Copper Mines," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 4-17, February.
    12. Deanna Kemp & John R. Owen, 2022. "Corporate social irresponsibility, hostile organisations and global resource extraction," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 1816-1824, September.
    13. Bainton, Nicholas & Holcombe, Sarah, 2018. "A critical review of the social aspects of mine closure," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 468-478.
    14. Lamas, Patricio & Goycoolea, Marcos & Pagnoncelli, Bernardo & Newman, Alexandra, 2024. "A target-time-windows technique for project scheduling under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 314(2), pages 792-806.
    15. Armin Fügenschuh & Marzena Fügenschuh, 2008. "Integer linear programming models for topology optimization in sheet metal design," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 68(2), pages 313-331, October.
    16. Leena Suopajärvi & Karin Beland Lindahl & Toni Eerola & Gregory Poelzer, 2023. "Social aspects of business risk in the mineral industry—political, reputational, and local acceptability risks facing mineral exploration and mining," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 36(2), pages 321-331, June.
    17. Enrique Jelvez & Nelson Morales & Julian M. Ortiz, 2021. "Stochastic Final Pit Limits: An Efficient Frontier Analysis under Geological Uncertainty in the Open-Pit Mining Industry," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, December.
    18. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2014. "Valuation framing and attribute scope variation in a choice experiment to asses the impacts of changing land use from agriculture to mining," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165888, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. César Flores-Fonseca & Rodrigo Linfati & John Willmer Escobar, 2022. "Exact algorithms for production planning in mining considering the use of stockpiles and sequencing of power shovels in open-pit mines," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 2529-2553, July.
    20. Sisi Que & Yu Huang & Kwame Awuah-Offei & Liang Wang & Songlin Liu, 2023. "Discrete Choice Experiment Consideration: A Framework for Mining Community Consultation with Case Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-17, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:16:p:8700-:d:608286. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.